' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos, 10063 of 1998, 13325,13324,13323, 13322, 13321, 11438, 25636, 24773, 24709, 24223,17935, 13761, 19880, 19491, 20541, 20517, 20294, 20246, 18747, 18299,18686, 18685, 17984, 17983, 19483, 19484, 19256. 13486, 12969, 13339,10911, 10727, 12268, 13487, 13724, 10982, 10753, 10621, 10908, 13582, 11715, 13553, 18982, 19923, 25418, 12810, 13743, 13326, 13327, 13328,13511, 11334, 13564, 12970, 19458, 11313, 23368, 13347, 10761, 23334,20592, 11431, 12119, 24228, 23643, 19588, 23860, 12968, 11432, 23089,24022, 11096, 20835, 23368, 18912, 19588, and 19080 of 1998 and WritPetitions Nos,1548, 856, 857, 5704, 1800 and 1063 of 1999 as the sameorder is impugned in all these petitions. .
2. Learned Advocate-General in these petitions, at the very outset, submitted that some of the petitioners in these petitions have approached the Punjab Service Tribunal and have availed the remedy of an appeal and, therefore, those writ 'petitions are liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Learned Advocate-General has also produced the list of such petitions. The list produced by Advocate-General shows that Parveen Akhtar Petitioner No,6 in Writ Petition No,20835 of 1998, Shakila Bano Petitioner No,2 in Writ Peittion No,18912 of 1998 and Abida Parveen Petitioner No,1 in Writ Petition No,13776 of 1998 have filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. As they have already availed the remedy of an appeal before the abovesaid forum, therefore, Writ Petitions Nos, 20835, 18912 and 13776 of 1998 to their extent stand dismissed.
3. The facts, in brief, as alleged in all these petitions are that the petitioners having been appointed as PTC teachers in the years 1995/1996, were performing their duties as teachers in various schools when the impugned order dated 3-4-1998 was passed* the Deputy District Education Officer (W), Tehsil. Sheikhupura to the effect that except the (sic) within mentioned 18 teachers, all the appointments made during 1995-96 stood cancelled with immediate effect and .a general direction was also issued to all the DDOs/headmistresses that barring those 18 teachers, all other such teachers may be discharged from their respective schools. The said order of Deputy District Education Officer (W), Tehsil Sheikhupura has been impugned by the petitioners in these petitions and it is contended on their behalf that on the basis of this general order, the respective Headmasters/Incharges of the schools have stopped the petitioners from the performance of their duties as P.T.C. Teachers although the services of none of them have been terminated on individual basis and no such order terminating the services of any of the petitioners, naming them as such, on individual basis, has been passed by any competent Authority and the petitioners' services cannot, in law, be deemed to have been terminated through the impugned order, which does not even name the individuals whose services are supposed to have been terminated.
4. On the other hand, learned Advocate-General, while opposing all these petitions, has argued that these petitions suffer from jurisdictional defect due to the bar as contained, in Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and that as the appointments of the petitioners were found to be bogus after detailed scrutiny, therefore, their appointments have rightly been cancelled by the respondent Deputy District Education Officer.
5. The impugned order does not name the individuals whose services have been terminated and through the said order it is being deemed that the appointments of the petitioners, who are civil servants, have already put in more than 3/4 years of service, have been cancelled. It is a noval order which is reproduced below: "OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EDUCATION OFFICER (WOMEN), SHEIKHUPURA ' ORDER No,277/E.I Dated 3-4-1998 Subject:CANCELLATION OF PTC APPOINTMENTS .
' As per verification made by the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, District Recruitment Committee, Sheikhupura, vide his Office Order No,AEB/2113 dated 27-3-1998, the approvals/proceedings made for appointment of PTC teachers, issued during 1995-96 have been declared bogus except the following (18) candidates, therefore, all other appointments of PTC teachers made by this Office during 1995-96 are hereby cancelled with immediate effect. All the DDOs are requested that in exception of the following lady PTC teachers, if any teacher is working in your school/jurisdiction showing the appointment during the year 1995-96 may be discharged from the school considering bogus (sic) under intimation to this office, moreover a certificate stating that no such teacher is working in your school may also be supplied to this office, failing which the head of institution/DDOs will be held responsible for all the consequences.
' List of (18) lady PTC candidates whose approval/proceedings have been verified by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura are as under:-- Sr. No, Name with parentage
(1) Mst. Fouzia Batool daughter of Syed Shabbir Hussain.
(2) Mst. Farhat Khurshid daughter of Muhammad Din.
(3) Mst. Sobia Iram daughter of Khalid Mehmood.
(4) Mst. Zahida Parveen daughter of Muhammad Ramzan.
(5) Mst. Surriya Anwer daughter of Muhammad Anwer.
(6) Mst. Rubina Kousar daughter of Muhammad Shukat.
(7) Mst. Tahira Yasmin daughter of Muhammad Khan.
(8) Mst. Shakila Asmat daughter of Asmat Ullah.
(9) Mst. Fouzia Ibrahim daughter of Hafiz Muhammad Ibrahim.
(10) Mst. Farzana Ihsan daughter of Muhamamd Ihsan.
(11) Mst. Anwar Jahan daughter of Muhammad Sadique.
(12) Mst. Farida Bashir daughter of Bashir Ahmad.
(13) Mst. Nasira Anwar daugther of Syed Anwar Hussain.
(14) Mst. Riffat Afzal Cheema daughter of Muhammad Ismail.
(15) Mst. Shalizadai Ghazala Iram daughter of Ghulam Rasul.
(16) Mst. Shafqat Naheed daughter of Muhammad Aslam.
(17) Mst. Rahat Shahzadi daughter of Ali Akbar.
(18) Mst. Fouzia Fahim daughter of Muhammad Ismail. Deputy District Education Officer, (Women), Tehsil Sheikhupura."
6. The appointments made about 3/4 years ago during 1995 and 1996 of all the F.T.C. Teachers in District Sheikhupura, who are hundreds in number, are said to have been cancelled through the impugned order. The present petitions have also been filed by hundreds of such P.T.C. Teachers.
The order narrates, that the same is being passed because the Deputy Commissioner/chairman, vide his letter dated 27-3-1998, has declared that the approvals/proceedings made for the - appointment of the P.T.C. Teachers during 1995-96 have been found to be bogus except those of the eighteen (18) mentioned in the impugned order. No material has been brought on the record to show that as to how the .Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the appointments of hundreds of these P.T.C. Teachers, made during the years 1995/96, were bogus. The order also shows that the Competent Authority/Deputy District Education Officer (W), Tehsil Sheikhupura has passed the impugned order of cancellation of all these appointments merely on the basis of the abovesaid letter dated 27-3-1998 of the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura. The order does not show that the Deputy District Education Officer, the Competent Authority, has acted independently or has held any inquiry in regard to the genuineness or non-genuineness of the said appointments.
The application of mind by the Competent Authority is missing. This is not the end. The impugned order does not even bother to name the P.T.C. Teachers whose appointments are being cancelled, through the impugned order. All these teachers have been getting their salaries paid by the Education Department for the last 3/4 years and through the impugned order it is being described that their appointments stand cancelled as the approvals given for their appointments in the years 1995-96 have been found to be bogus by the Deputy Commissioner. The order does not say that the appointments were bogus. It merely says that the approvals for the appointment given in the year 1995-96 have been found to be bogus and the detail as to how the same have been found to be bogus is not forthcoming. In these circumstances, it is not understandable as to how the appointments of all these hundreds of P.T.C. Teachers are being said to have been cancelled through the impugned order which does not even name the said P.T.C. Teachers. No order which does not name the civil servant whose services are being cancelled or terminated can be said to be an order in the eye of law, cancelling/terminating the appointment/service of the said civil servants. In answer to a query posed by this Court, learned.Advocate- General, Punjab, has tried to argue that the civil servants whose services are being terminated have not been named in the impugned order because the same are not treacable as most of them were working in ghost schools. The explanation is not understandable. All these employees have been paid their salaries for these years and, therefore, to say that they have not been named in the impugned order because they cannot be traced is merely the ill-instruction given to the learned Advocate-General.
Punjab, by the Education Department. In these circumstances, when there is no order in existence cancelling/terminating the appiontments/services of civil servants by name, the said civil servants cannot approach the Punjab Service Tribunal in an appeal against a non-existing order, therefore, the bar as contained in Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in regard to the jurisdiction of this Court is not attracted to the facts of this Court.
7. In view of the abovementioned all these Constitutional petitions are accepted and it is declared that through the impugned order, the services of the petitioners have not been cancelled as the same does not have the names of those whose appointments have been cancelled. Consequently the petitioners are declared to be in service and the action of the Headmasters/Incharges of the schools, stopping the petitioners from performance of their duties as P.T.C. Teachers, on the basis of the abovesaid impugned order, is declared to be without lawful authority. It is, however, clarified that the department is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners, if so desired, on individual basis, under the relevant law and under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.